Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gvh9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-23T15:53:13.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part I - Context

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2017

Oliver James
Affiliation:
University of Exeter
Sebastian R. Jilke
Affiliation:
Rutgers University, New Jersey
Gregg G. Van Ryzin
Affiliation:
Rutgers University, New Jersey
Get access

Summary

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Experiments in Public Management Research
Challenges and Contributions
, pp. 1 - 56
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Anderson, D. M. and Edwards, B. C. 2015. ‘Unfulfilled promise: laboratory experiments in public management research’. Public Management Review 17(10): 1518–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angrist, J. and Pischke, J.-S. 2014. Mastering Metrics: The Path from Cause to Effect. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Baekgaard, M., Baethge, C., Blom-Hansen, J., Dunlop, C. A., Esteve, M., Jakobsen, M., Kisida, B., Marvel, J., Moseley, A., Serritzlew, S., and Stewart, P., 2015. ‘Conducting experiments in public management research: a practical guide’. International Public Management Journal, 18(2): 323–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banerjee, A. and Duflo, E. 2009. ‘The experimental approach to development economics’. Annual Review of Economics, 1, 151–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blom-Hansen, J., Morton, R., and Serritzlew, S., 2015. ‘Experiments in public management research’. International Public Management Journal, 18(2): 151–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, H. S., ed. 2006. Learning More from Social Experiments. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
Broockman, D., Kalla, J., and Aronow, P. 2015. ‘Irregularities in LaCour (2014): A36–A38’. https://people.stanford.edu/dbroock/sites/default/files/broockman_kalla_aronow_lg_irregularities.pdf (last accessed 23 Feb 2016).Google Scholar
Bouwman, R. and Grimmelikhuijsen, S. 2016. ‘Experimental public administration from 1992 to 2014: a systematic literature review and ways forward’. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 29(2): 110–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bozeman, B. and Scott, P. 1992. ‘Laboratory experiments in public policy and management’. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2(3): 293313.Google Scholar
Brewer, G. A. and Brewer, G. A. Jr. 2011. ‘Parsing public/private differences in work motivation and performance: an experimental study’. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(s3): i347–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, N. and Hardie, J. 2012. Evidence-Based Policy: A Practical Guide to Doing It Better. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charness, G. and Kuhn, P., 2011. ‘Lab labor: what can labor economists learn from the lab?Handbook of Labor Economics, 4, 229330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colquitt, J. A. 2008. ‘From the editors publishing laboratory research in AMJ: a question of when, not if’. Academy of Management Journal, 51(4): 616–20.Google Scholar
Dobel, J. P. 2005 Public management as ethics, in Ferlie, E., Lynn, L., and Pollitt, C. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Public Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 156–81.Google Scholar
Drewry, G. 2003. Introduction: law and administration, in Peters, B. G. and Pierre, J. (eds.) Handbook of Public Administration. London: Sage, 257–9.Google Scholar
Druckman, J. N., Green, D. P., Kuklinski, J. H., and Lupia, A. eds. 2011. Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunning, T., 2012. Natural Experiments in the Social Sciences: A Design-Based Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferlie, E., Lynn, L. E., and Pollitt, C. 2005. Afterword, in Ferlie, E., Lynn, L., and Pollitt, C. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Public Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 720–9.Google Scholar
Field, A. and Hole, G. 2002. How to Design and Report Experiments. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Frechette, G. R. and Schotter, A. 2015. Handbook of Experimental Economic Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedman, D. A. and Petitti, D. B. 2001. ‘Salt and blood pressure: conventional wisdom reconsidered’. Evaluation Review, 25(3): 267–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friedman, D. 2010. Experimental Methods: A Primer for Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, L. M., Furberg, C. D., and DeMets, D. L. 2010. Fundamentals of Clinical Trials (4th Edition). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, A. S. and Green, D. P. 2012. Field Experiments: Design, Analysis and Interpretation. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Gill, J. and Meier, K. J. 2000. ‘Public administration research and practice: a methodological manifesto’. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(1): 157–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimmelikhuijsen, S., Jilke, S., Leth Olsen, A., and Tummers, L. 2017. ‘Behavioral public administration: combining insights from public administration and psychology’. Public Administration Review, 77(1): 4556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guala, F. 2005. The Methodology of Experimental Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, G. W. and List, J. A. 2004. ‘Field experiments’. Journal of Economic Literature, 42(4): 1009–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haverland, M. and Yanow, D. 2012. ‘A hitchhiker’s guide to the public administration research universe: surviving conversations on methodologies and methods’. Public Administration Review, 72(3): 401–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hood, C. 2005. Public management: the word, the movement, the science, in Ferlie, E., Lynn, L., and Pollitt, C. (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Public Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 726.Google Scholar
Imbens, G. and Rubin, D. 2015. Causal Inference for Statistics, Social and Biomedical Sciences: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobsen, M. and Jensen, R. 2015. ‘Common method bias in public management studies’. International Public Management Journal, 18(1): 330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jilke, S. 2015. Essays on the Microfoundations of Competition and Choice in Public Service Delivery. PhD dissertation. Rotterdam: Erasmus University Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Jilke, S., Van de Walle, S., and Kim, S. 2016. ‘Generating usable knowledge through an experimental approach to public administration’. Public Administration Review, 76(1): 6972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jilke, S., Petrovsky, N., Meuleman, B., and James, O. 2016. ‘Measurement equivalence in replications of experiments: when and why it matters and guidance on how to determine equivalence’. Public Management Review (ahead-of-print).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitt, S. D. and List, J. A. 2009. ‘Field experiments in economics: the past, the present, and the future’. European Economic Review, 53(1): 118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynn, Laurence E. 1996. Public Management as Art, Science, and Profession. London: Chatham House Publishers.Google Scholar
Margetts, Helen Z. 2011. ‘Experiments for public management research’. Public Management Review, 13(2): 189208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, J. N. S. 2006. Introduction to Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials (2nd Edition). Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNabb, D. E. 2015. Research Methods in Public Administration and Nonprofit Management. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, S. L. and Winship, C. 2014. Counterfactuals and Causal Inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, R. B. and Williams, K. C. 2010. Experimental Political Science: From Nature to the Lab. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutz, D. 2011. Population-Based Survey Experiments. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
O’Toole, L. J. and Meier, K. J. 2015. ‘Public management, context, and performance: in quest of a more general theory’. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25 (1): 237–56.Google Scholar
Pearl, J. 2000. Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Perry, J. L. 2012. ‘How can we improve our science to generate more usable knowledge for public professionals?Public Administration Review, 72(4): 479–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, B. G. and Pierre, J., eds. 2003. Handbook of Public Administration. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raadschelders, J. C. 2011. ‘The future of the study of public administration: embedding research object and methodology in epistemology and ontology’. Public Administration Review, 71(6): 916–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Remler, D. K. and Van Ryzin, G. G. 2015. Research Methods in Practice: Strategies for Description and Causation (2nd Edition). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., and Campbell, D. T. 2002. Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. 1946. ‘The proverbs of administration’. Public Administration Review, 6(1): 5367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. 2014. Why Nudge?: The Politics of Libertarian Paternalism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Thaler, R. H. and Sunstein, C. R. 2008. Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Tummers, L., Olsen, A. L., Jilke, S., and Grimmelikhuijsen, S. 2016. ‘Introduction to the virtual issue on behavioral public administration’. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, (2016): 13.Google Scholar
Van Thiel, S. 2014. Research Methods in Public Administration and Public Management: An Introduction. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, R, James, O. and Brewer, G. A. 2017. ‘Replication, experiments and knowledge in public management research’. Public Management Review, 19(10).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, B. 2015. ‘The science of public administration: problems, presumptions, progress, and possibilities’. Public Administration Review, 75(6): 795805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

Anderson, D. M. and Edwards, B. C. 2015. ‘Unfulfilled promise: laboratory experiments in public management research’, Public Management Review, 17(10), pp. 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avellaneda, C. N. 2013. ‘Mayoral decision-making: issue salience, decision context, and choice constraint? An experimental study with 120 Latin American mayors’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(3), pp. 631–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bækgaard, M. 2011. ‘The impact of formal organizational structure on politico-administrative interaction: evidence from a natural experiment’, Public Administration, 89(3), pp. 1063–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellé, N. 2014. ‘Leading to make a difference: a field experiment on the performance effects of transformational leadership, perceived social impact, and public service motivation’, Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 24(1), pp. 109–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellé, N. 2015. ‘Performance-related pay and the crowding out of motivation in the public sector: a randomized field experiment’, Public Administration Review, 75(2), pp. 230–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhatti, Y., Gørtz, M. and Pedersen, L. H. 2015. ‘The causal effect of profound organizational change when job insecurity is low – a quasi-experiment analyzing municipal mergers’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(4), pp. 11851220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouwman, R. and Grimmelikhuijsen, S. G. 2016. ‘Experimental public administration from 1992 to 2014: a systematic literature review and ways forward’, International Journal of Public Sector Management, 29(2), pp. 110–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bozeman, B. 1992. ‘Experimental design in public policy and management research: introduction’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2(4), pp. 440–2.Google Scholar
Bozeman, B. and Scott, P. 1992. ‘Laboratory experiments in public policy and management’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2(3), pp. 293313.Google Scholar
Chalkley, M. et al. 2010. ‘Incentives for dentists in public service: evidence from a natural experiment’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(s2), pp. i207i223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunlop, C. A., Kamkhaji, J. C. and Radaelli, C. M. 2015. ‘Regulators and reform: a quasi-experimental assessment of the effects of training inspectors’, International Public Management Journal, 18(2), pp. 304–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esteve, M., Urbig, D., Van Witteloostuijn, A., and Boyne, G. 2016. ‘Prosocial behavior and public service motivation’, Public Administration Review, 76(1), pp. 177–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenn, P. et al., 2010. ‘Enterprise liability, risk pooling, and diagnostic care’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(s2), pp. i225i242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Fine Licht, J. 2014. ‘Policy area as a potential moderator of transparency effects: an experiment’, Public Administration Review, 74(3), pp. 361–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Fine Licht, J. et al. 2014. ‘When does transparency generate legitimacy? Experimenting on a context-bound relationship’, Governance, 27(1), pp. 111–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwald, H. P. et al. 2003. ‘Polling and policy analysis as resources for advocacy’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(2), pp. 177–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimmelikhuijsen, S. 2012. ‘Linking transparency, knowledge and citizen trust in government: an experiment’, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(1), pp. 5073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimmelikhuijsen, S. et al. 2013. ‘The effect of transparency on trust in government: a cross-national comparative experiment’, Public Administration Review, 73(4), pp. 575–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimmelikhuijsen, S. G. and Klijn, A. 2015. ‘The effects of judicial transparency on public trust: evidence from a field experiment’, Public Administration, 93(4), pp. 9951011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimmelikhuijsen, S. G. and Meijer, A. J. 2014. ‘Effects of transparency on the perceived trustworthiness of a government organization: evidence from an online experiment’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(1), pp. 137–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, O. 2011a. ‘Managing citizens’ expectations of public service performance: evidence from observation and experimentation in local government’, Public Administration, 89(4), pp. 1419–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, O. 2011b. ‘Performance measures and democracy: information effects on citizens in field and laboratory experiments’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(3), pp. 399418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, O. and Moseley, A. 2014. ‘Does performance information about public services affect citizens’ perception, satisfaction, and voice behaviour? Field experiments with absolute and relative performance information’, Public Administration, 92(2), pp. 493511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jilke, S., Van de Walle, S. and Kim, S. 2016. ‘Generating usable knowledge through an experimental approach to public administration’, Public Administration Review, 76(1), pp. 6972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, S. H. and Kim, S. 2016. ‘National culture and social desirability bias in measuring public service motivation’, Administration & Society, 48(4), pp. 444–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knott, J. H., Miller, G. J. and Verkuilen, J. 2003. ‘Adaptive incrementalism and complexity: experiments with two-person cooperative signaling games’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(3), pp. 341–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lachapelle, E., Montpetit, É. and Gauvin, J. 2014. ‘Public perceptions of expert credibility on policy issues: the role of expert framing and political worldviews’, Policy Studies Journal, 42(4), pp. 674–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landsbergen, D. et al. 1997. ‘Decision quality, confidence, and commitment with expert systems: an experimental study’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7(1), pp. 131–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landsbergen, D., Bozeman, B. and Bretschneider, S. 1992. ‘“Internal rationality” and the effects of perceived decision difficulty: results of a public management decisionmaking experiment’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2(3), pp. 247–64.Google Scholar
Lawrence, E., Stoker, R. and Wolman, H. 2013. ‘The effects of beneficiary targeting on public support for social policies’, Policy Studies Journal, 41(2), pp. 199216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margetts, H. Z. 2011. ‘Experiments for public management research’, Public Management Review, 13(2), pp. 189208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nutt, P. C. 2006. ‘Comparing public and private sector decision-making practices’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(2), pp. 289318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riccucci, N. M., Van Ryzin, G. G. and Lavena, C. F. 2014. ‘Representative bureaucracy in policing: does it increase perceived legitimacy?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(3), pp. 537–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riccucci, N. M., Van Ryzin, G. G. and Li, H. 2016. ‘Representative bureaucracy and the willingness to coproduce: an experimental study’, Public Administration Review, 76(1), pp. 121–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, P. G. 1997. ‘Assessing determinants of bureaucratic discretion: an experiment in street-level decision making’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7(1), pp. 3558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thurmaier, K. 1992. ‘Budgetary decisionmaking in central budget bureaus: an experiment’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2(4), pp. 463–87.Google Scholar
Van De Walle, S. and Van Ryzin, G. G. 2011. ‘The order of questions in a survey on citizen satisfaction with public services: lessons from a split-ballot experiment’, Public Administration, 89(4), pp. 1436–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittmer, D. 1992. ‘Ethical sensitivity and managerial decisionmaking: an experiment’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2(4), pp. 443–62.Google Scholar
Yakovlev, A. et al. 2015. ‘The impacts of different regulatory regimes on the effectiveness of public procurement’, International Journal of Public Administration, 38(11), pp. 796814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

Anderson, D. M. and Edwards, B. C. 2015. ‘Unfulfilled promise: laboratory experiments in public management research’, Public Management Review 17(10): 1518–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, D. M. and Stritch, J. M. 2016. ‘Goal clarity, task significance, and performance: evidence from a laboratory experiment’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 26(2): 211–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avellaneda, C. N. 2013. ‘Mayoral decision-making: issue salience, decision context, and choice constraint? An experimental study with 120 Latin American mayors’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 23(3): 631–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baccini, L., Li, Q., and Mirkina, I. 2014. ‘Corporate tax cuts and foreign direct investment’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 33(4): 9771006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaman, L. A., Chattopadhyay, R., Duflo, E., Pande, R., and Topalova, P. 2009. ‘Powerful women: does exposure reduce bias?Quarterly Journal of Economics 124(4): 14971540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellé, N. 2015. ‘Performance-related pay and the crowding out of motivation in the public sector: a randomized field experiment’, Public Administration Review 75(2): 230–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellé, N. and Cantarelli, P. 2015. ‘Monetary incentives, motivation, and job effort in the public sector: an experimental study with Italian government executives’, Review of Public Personnel Administration 35(2): 99123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blom-Hansen, J., Houlberg, K., and Serritzlew, S. 2014. ‘Size, democracy, and the economic costs of running the political system’, American Journal of Political Science 58(4): 790803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bozeman, B. and Scott, P. 1992. ‘Laboratory experiments in public policy and management’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 2(3): 293313.Google Scholar
Brollo, F., Nannicini, T., Perotti, R., and Tabellini, G. 2013. ‘The political resource curse’, American Economic Review 103(5): 1759–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, D. T. and Stanley, J. C. 1963. Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Research. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
Clayton, A. 2015. ‘Women’s political engagement under quota-mandated female representation: evidence from a randomized policy experiment’, Comparative Political Studies 48(3): 333–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clerkin, R. M., Paynter, S. R., and Taylor, J. K. 2009. ‘Public service motivation in undergraduate giving and volunteering decisions’, American Review of Public Administration 39(6): 675–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cyert, R. M. and March, J. G. 1963. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
De La O, A. L. 2013. ‘Do conditional cash transfers affect electoral behavior? Evidence from a randomized experiment in Mexico’, American Journal of Political Science 57(1): 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easterbrook, P. J., Gopalan, R., Berlin, J. A., and Matthews, D. R. 1991. ‘Publication bias in clinical research’, The Lancet 337(8746): 867–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Faguet, J.-P. 2012. Decentralization and Popular Democracy: Governance from Below in Bolivia. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fayol, H. 1949. General and Industrial Management. London: Pitman.Google Scholar
Ferraz, C. and Finan, F. 2008. ‘Exposing corrupt politicians: the effects of Brazil’s publicly released audits on electoral outcomes’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 123(2): 703–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferraz, C. and Finan, F. 2011. ‘Electoral accountability and corruption: evidence from the audits of local governments’, American Economic Review 101: 12741311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, F. and Sirianni, C., eds. 1994. Critical Studies in Organization and Bureaucracy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Grimmelikhuijsen, S. and Klinj, A. 2015. ‘The effects of judicial transparency on public trust: evidence from a field experiment’, Public Administration 93(4): 9951011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimmelikhuijsen, S., Porumbescu, G., Hong, B., and Im, T. 2013. ‘The effect of transparency on trust in government: a cross-national comparative experiment’, Public Administration Review 73(4): 575–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haynes, L. C., Green, D. P., Gallagher, R., John, P., and Torgerson, D. J. 2013. ‘Collection of delinquent fines: an adaptive randomized trial to assess the effectiveness of alternative text messages’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 32(4): 718–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobsen, M. 2013. ‘Can government initiatives increase citizen coproduction? Results of a randomized field experiment’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 23(1): 2754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobsen, M. and Andersen, S. C. 2013. ‘Intensifying social exchange relationships in public organizations: evidence from a randomized field experiment’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 32(1): 6082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, O. 2011a. ‘Managing citizens’ expectations of public service performance: evidence from observation and experimentation in local government’, Public Administration 89(4): 1419–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, O. 2011b. ‘Performance measures and democracy: information effects on citizens in field and laboratory experiments’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21(3): 399418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, O., Jilke, S., Petersen, C., and Van de Walle, S. 2016. ‘Citizens’ blame of politicians for public service failure: experimental evidence about blame reduction through delegation and contracting’, Public Administration Review 76(1): 8393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, G. et al. 2007. ‘A “politically robust” experimental design for public policy evaluation, with application to the Mexican universal health insurance program’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 26(3): 479506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landsbergen, D., Bozeman, B., and Bretschneider, S. 1992. ‘“Internal rationality” and the effects of perceived decision difficulty: results of a public management decisionmaking experiment’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 2(3): 247–64.Google Scholar
Levitt, S. D., and List, J. A. 2011. ‘Was there really a Hawthorne effect at the Hawthorne plant? An analysis of the original illumination experiments’, American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 3(1): 224–38.Google Scholar
McGregor, D. 1960. The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Meier, K. J., Favero, N., and Zhu, L.. 2015. ‘Performance gaps and managerial decisions: a Bayesian decision theory of managerial action’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 25(4): 1221–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moynihan, D. P. 2008. The Dynamics of Performance Management. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Moynihan, D. P. 2013. ‘Does public service motivation lead to budget maximization? Evidence from an experiment’, International Public Management Journal 16(2): 179–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Toole, L. J. Jr. and Meier, K. J. 2015. ‘Public management, context, and performance: in quest of a more general theory’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 25(1): 237–56.Google Scholar
Presthus, R. V. 1965. Behavioral Approaches to Public Administration. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Riccucci, N. M., Van Ryzin, G. G., and Lavena, C. F. 2014. ‘Representative bureaucracy in policing: does it increase perceived legitimacy?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 24(3): 537–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riccucci, N. M., Van Ryzin, G. G., and Li, H. 2015. ‘Representative bureaucracy and the willingness to coproduce: an experimental study’, Public Administration Review 76(1): 121–30.Google Scholar
Roethlisberger, F. J. and Dickson, W. J. 1939. Management and the Worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R. 1979. ‘The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results’, Psychological Bulletin 86(3): 638–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., and Campbell, D. T. 2002. Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. 1946. ‘The proverbs of administration’, Public Administration Review 6(1): 5367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. A. 1947. Administrative Behavior. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. 1969. The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A., Divine, W. R., Cooper, E. M., and Chernin, M. 1941. Determining Work Loads for Professional Staff in a Public Welfare Agency. Berkeley: Bureau of Public Administration: University of California.Google Scholar
Taylor, F. W. 1911. The Principles of Scientific Management. New York: Harper and Brothers.Google Scholar
Weber, M. 1946. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Gerth, H. H. and Mills, C. Wright, trans. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Willis, D. 2014. ‘Professors’ research stirs political outrage in Montana’, New York Times (October 28, 2014), www.nytimes.com/2014/10/29/upshot/professors-research-project-stirs-political-outrage-in-montana.html?_r=0, accessed November 28, 2015.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×